About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
speaking to then president bill clinton back in 1994 about the bosnian war, which at that point was going into its third year and had claimed tens of thousands of lives. >> as leader of the free world, as leader of the only superpower, why has it taken you, the united states, so long to articulate a policy on bosnia? why in the absence of a policy have you allowed the u.s. and the west to be held hostage to those who do have a clear policy, the bosnian serbs, and do you not think that the constant flip-flops of your administration on the issue of bosnia sets a very dangerous precedent and would lead, other strong people, to take you less seriously than you would like to be taken? >> no, but speeches like that make them take me less seriously than i'd like to be taken. there have been no constant flip-flops, madam. >> so is this a question that we should be asking the obama administration about syria? >> well, you remember, randi, that president clinton was really angry with me when i was asking that question from sarajevo. the fact of the matter is the question didn't prompt intervention
clinton and state counselors have been engaging for some time, and that is can we get a better answer than we have had in the past two how a new rise in power comes to the international system. and can we do so without running significant risks or indeed fall into conflict. >> thanks. please. >> i agree with everything the undersecretary has said your, and, in fact, admiral sam locklear underscore those pushes a couple days ago in australia. talking about engagement and that strategic trust. but it's interesting that the chinese tend to look at the american, ma asia pacific give it a sort of a continuing strategy. which speaks to the inability to really communicate with strategic effect. and i think you touched, steve, on a very important piece which was a seniority complex and if i can put it that way. china has felt that they were abused by major powers to the 19th century and well into the 20 century, and that has an interesting counterbalance, which is a seemed a bit of a superiority complex about the solutions that they are building on how china images as a global power. the disconten
the rich. >> clayton: and questions whether we'd go back to the clinton era, 37 somewhere? at the end of the day the point what mr. forbes was saying, if the president does nothing, yes, the taxes go back up to those previous rates and also, defense gets cuts. forget about, we're not talking see questions station much, b -- sequestration? >> did you see what's happening in california, maybe that should be a barometer. tax increases in the state of california and raise revenue and look at the revenues have not gone up. >> a lot of republicans see california and americans, many democrats see california as a cautionary tale. what california has done and interesting and got then them ooh into a pickle. they have the battle initiatives where voters can go in themselves and vote for what they want and these all cost money. >> it all costs money. >> yeah, this is a mistake of california, right? since the late 70's, when these ballot provisions started going through, yes, you had a number of them. i was out there when was unfoldi unfolding, a number passed and californias voted to increase th
, but i could go back to knot the use of the filibuster but other methods of obstruction with bill clinton who reached out all the time. so i think that's the factor but a minor one. i think harry reid's use of filling the amendment tree, partly this is chicken and egg, but has been done too much and that didn't result in at least some protests and willingness of some senators on his side who might otherwise have joined in some of these filibusters to do so. it had much more to do with a concerted party strategy can which i think is the first time we have seen it. >> i think there's two separate issues. one, obstruction on nominations, and to come obstruction on -- [inaudible] it is true you see these judges and it will go 99 points. but i think it's important to remember what we are talking about. the alternative to that is to move it by unanimous consent. it's not like the house where there is about. and if a member of checks to unanimous consent because they do not want to vote, don't want to be forced to vote for a judge, they say i will have a roll call. now, the majority leader at th
's really not wrapped around that area. what has happened in part d and president rick clinton referred to this in his speech at the democratic convention is bringing the cost of the pharmaceuticals found. but is doing is similar to what was i was talking about ability to capitalistic competition. we did a joint venture a few years ago with wal-mart and we introduced a $50 a month drug plan. fifteen dollars a month. the industry thought we were crazy to do this. but what we did its worked with wal-mart's purchasing power, wal-mart's distribution capability and management and our ability to bring solutions to our members have broader product out. it has brought down the price of part d significantly in the industry. d.c. united came out $15 it is not doing with targeted pbs. what that's doing is spurring competition to the market place. you're right, maybe you can't take the anthem plan and humana plan by the time of purchase and users individually, but the thing about medicare advantage is you can walk the next year and your ability to walk from one planned to another plan motivates me
that president was in cambodia right after the election. he was in burma. secretary clinton moved widely throughout the region as does secretary panetta. and the amount of activities that i do and my forces do have been a prompt jump in what we've done in the past, and we're looking for opportunities to do more exercise. we're doing more of those things already. i think it's visible to our allies. i think it's visible to our partners. not to be invisible to the region. we also want to jump, where's the next summary our aircraft carrier, that's always the sake of. and we will, over time as you heard secretary panetta said, we will rebalance our navy towards the pacific, and i party mentioned in my opening remarks, we are rapidly moving our most capable assets in the region because of some of the ballistic missile defense will be facing of those types of things. so i think it's not about one thing. it's about a holistic approach, and what if you on the military side is only one aspect of a. it's got to be tied to what's happening in the economic side in what's happening in the diplomatic s
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)